The price of legalizing pot is too high
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 Next
OnTheIce @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:05 pm
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
The War on Drugs is costing Canadians a shitload currently, every year.
Legalization of Marijuana would do what exactly, other then let chip sales skyrocket?
Legalization of Marijuana would do what exactly, other then let chip sales skyrocket?
As it should. The War on Drugs costs far less than if we are to legalize them all and deal with the effects later.
It's not like you legalize weed and then the World is a better place with everyone smiling and eating Lays.
Lemmy @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:09 pm
Thanos Thanos:
I'd agree with you 100% if I thought that what's a "Reasonable Limit" could be etched in legal stone forever and agreed to by the majority of responsible people on both sides of the issue. The thing is that "Reasonable Limits" are continually being undermined by those who refuse to accept any logical containment of their "rights". I still maintain those with such motivation will not stand still just for marijuana legalization. And "harm to society" is a term that can quite easily be redefined almost endlessly. All a pervert needs is a smart lawyer saying the appealing things and a sympathetic judge to go along with something completely monstrous and any precedent arrangment of a reasonable limit can be wiped out with a single decision.
I'd rather put up with a minorly unfair status quo than change things right now and risk a nuclear-war equivalent catastrophe on a pan-societal level. The thought of exporting the culture of East Vancouver to every neighbourhood in Canada leaves me stone cold.
I'd rather put up with a minorly unfair status quo than change things right now and risk a nuclear-war equivalent catastrophe on a pan-societal level. The thought of exporting the culture of East Vancouver to every neighbourhood in Canada leaves me stone cold.
I disagree with 2 things you've said above: 1. Law is dynamic. It's MEANT to change over time, to be maliable, to meet the changing needs and realities of our society, not to be "etched in stone"; 2. I don't accept the 'majority of reasonable people' standard. I think minority rights ought to be protected equally. It wasn't so long ago that the majority of folks KNEW the Earth was flat. A minority of people in Canada are homosexual, but their lifestyle choice ought to be protected too.
Your fear of a spreading East Vancouver is valid, but Skid Row a product of a lot of things. None of them, I'd argue, is marijuana.
Public_Domain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:12 pm
OnTheIce @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:16 pm
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
Explain the "effects" and the "costs".
If you dare say that Marijuana kills people, I might snap.
If you dare say that Marijuana kills people, I might snap.
How can someone who supports the issue be so blind and not even considered the other side of the debate?
Educate yourself. I'm sure you're familiar with Google. Give it a shot.
Public_Domain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:29 pm
OnTheIce @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:47 pm
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
Explain the "effects" and the "costs".
If you dare say that Marijuana kills people, I might snap.
If you dare say that Marijuana kills people, I might snap.
How can someone who supports the issue be so blind and not even considered the other side of the debate?
Educate yourself. I'm sure you're familiar with Google. Give it a shot.
I prefer not to read another website that screams on and on about how Pot kills brain cells, turns people into murderers and causes teenage depression. And how we must save the children. I'd prefer to hear what you think is the risk. What, productivity?
That's the only slightly reasonable thing that I can think of, despite no proof of it actually making people lazier, since productive people smoke pot too.
What, a few car accidents? What else is there?
When you're ready to learn a little about the economic, health, and social issues involved with legalizing any drug, then we can have an intelligent debate.
Until then, you can take your "Eat Lays - Be Happy" campaign and preach your ignorance to others.
Public_Domain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:00 pm
Scape @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:00 am
$1:
God Bless the Parents Who Drugged us!
The other day, someone at a store in our town read that a methamphetamine lab had been found in an old farmhouse in the adjoining county and he asked me a rhetorical question,
"Why didn't we have a drug problem when you and I were growing up? "
I replied: I had a drug problem when I was young: I was drug to church on Sunday morning. I was drug to church for weddings and funerals.
I was drug to family reunions and community socials no matter the weather. I was drug by my ears when I was disrespectful to adults.
I was also drug to the woodshed when I disobeyed my parents, told a lie, brought home a bad report card, did not speak with respect, spoke ill of the teacher or the preacher, or if I didn't put forth my best effort in everything that was asked of me.
I was drug to the kitchen sink to have my mouth washed out with soap if I uttered a profane four-letter word. I was drug out to pull weeds in mom's garden and flower beds and cockleburs out of dad's fields.
I was drug to the homes of family, friends, and neighbors to help out some poor soul who had no one to mow the yard, repair the clothesline, or chop some firewood; and, if my mother had ever known that I took a single dime as a tip for this kindness, she would have drug me back to the woodshed.
Those drugs are still in my veins; and they affect my behavior in everything I do, say, and think.
They are stronger than cocaine, crack, or heroin; and, if today's children had this kind of drug problem, America would be a better place
~Author unknown
The other day, someone at a store in our town read that a methamphetamine lab had been found in an old farmhouse in the adjoining county and he asked me a rhetorical question,
"Why didn't we have a drug problem when you and I were growing up? "
I replied: I had a drug problem when I was young: I was drug to church on Sunday morning. I was drug to church for weddings and funerals.
I was drug to family reunions and community socials no matter the weather. I was drug by my ears when I was disrespectful to adults.
I was also drug to the woodshed when I disobeyed my parents, told a lie, brought home a bad report card, did not speak with respect, spoke ill of the teacher or the preacher, or if I didn't put forth my best effort in everything that was asked of me.
I was drug to the kitchen sink to have my mouth washed out with soap if I uttered a profane four-letter word. I was drug out to pull weeds in mom's garden and flower beds and cockleburs out of dad's fields.
I was drug to the homes of family, friends, and neighbors to help out some poor soul who had no one to mow the yard, repair the clothesline, or chop some firewood; and, if my mother had ever known that I took a single dime as a tip for this kindness, she would have drug me back to the woodshed.
Those drugs are still in my veins; and they affect my behavior in everything I do, say, and think.
They are stronger than cocaine, crack, or heroin; and, if today's children had this kind of drug problem, America would be a better place
~Author unknown
Public_Domain @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:19 am
Bruce_the_vii @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:49 am
Good article, I enjoyed reading it. I don't believe the key statistics, but now I know what the claims are.
romanP @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:50 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
If those lazy stoners got off their lazy asses and grew their own, this wouldn't be a problem.
How should they do that if it's illegal to have even a gram of weed in the United States?
Gunnair @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:37 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
Thanos Thanos:
I'd agree with you 100% if I thought that what's a "Reasonable Limit" could be etched in legal stone forever and agreed to by the majority of responsible people on both sides of the issue. The thing is that "Reasonable Limits" are continually being undermined by those who refuse to accept any logical containment of their "rights". I still maintain those with such motivation will not stand still just for marijuana legalization. And "harm to society" is a term that can quite easily be redefined almost endlessly. All a pervert needs is a smart lawyer saying the appealing things and a sympathetic judge to go along with something completely monstrous and any precedent arrangment of a reasonable limit can be wiped out with a single decision.
I'd rather put up with a minorly unfair status quo than change things right now and risk a nuclear-war equivalent catastrophe on a pan-societal level. The thought of exporting the culture of East Vancouver to every neighbourhood in Canada leaves me stone cold.
I'd rather put up with a minorly unfair status quo than change things right now and risk a nuclear-war equivalent catastrophe on a pan-societal level. The thought of exporting the culture of East Vancouver to every neighbourhood in Canada leaves me stone cold.
I disagree with 2 things you've said above: 1. Law is dynamic. It's MEANT to change over time, to be maliable, to meet the changing needs and realities of our society, not to be "etched in stone"; 2. I don't accept the 'majority of reasonable people' standard. I think minority rights ought to be protected equally. It wasn't so long ago that the majority of folks KNEW the Earth was flat. A minority of people in Canada are homosexual, but their lifestyle choice ought to be protected too.
Your fear of a spreading East Vancouver is valid, but Skid Row a product of a lot of things. None of them, I'd argue, is marijuana.
Minority rights? What minority rights? There is no such thing as the minority right to break the law.
Comparing the selfish desire to indulge in illegal marijuana is not even remotely in the same ballpark as homosexual rights. Nice that you assume it's nothing more than a lifestyle choice for homosexuals, by the way. Your ignorance is astounding.
Gunnair @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:40 am
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
When you're ready to learn a little about the economic, health, and social issues involved with legalizing any drug, then we can have an intelligent debate.
Until then, you can take your "Eat Lays - Be Happy" campaign and preach your ignorance to others.
Until then, you can take your "Eat Lays - Be Happy" campaign and preach your ignorance to others.
When you can stop being an ignorant superficial partisan clown and actually explain what you assume would happen, THEN we can have an intellectual debate.
So far you haven't given any reason against legalization.
Why should Supports of Legalization have to defend our views when you won't even properly present yours?
Because marijuana is illegal. It's not required to justify that to the small percentage of potheads with maturity issues.
DerbyX @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:46 am
Homosexuality and its various practices used to be illegal and it's illegality was defended (aside form the religious reasons) so that society may be protected. Times change.
$1:
Before 1859, Canada relied on British law to prosecute sodomy. In 1859, Canada repatriated its buggery law in the Consolidated Statutes of Canada as an offense punishable by death. Buggery remained punishable by death until 1869. A broader law targeting all homosexual male sexual activity ("gross indecency") was passed in 1892, as part of a larger update to the criminal law. Changes to the criminal code in 1948 and 1961 were used to brand gay men as "criminal sexual psychopaths" and "dangerous sexual offenders." These labels provided for indeterminate prison sentences. Most famously, George Klippert, a homosexual, was labelled a dangerous sexual offender and sentenced to life in prison, a sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. He was released in 1971.
Canadian law now permits anal sex by consenting parties above the age of 18, provided no more than two people are present. The bill repealing Canada's sodomy laws was the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Bill C-150), which received royal assent on June 27, 1969. The bill had been introduced in the House of Commons by Pierre Trudeau,[8] who famously stated that "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation".[9] In the 1995 Court of Appeal for Ontario case R. v. M. (C.), the judges ruled that the relevant section (section 159) of the Criminal Code of Canada violated section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when one or both of the partners are 16 to 18 years of age; this has not been tried in court again.
A similar decision was made by the Quebec Court of Appeal in the 1998 case R. v. Roy.
Exceptions are made between a married husband and wife, where it is legal if they are married.
Canadian law now permits anal sex by consenting parties above the age of 18, provided no more than two people are present. The bill repealing Canada's sodomy laws was the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Bill C-150), which received royal assent on June 27, 1969. The bill had been introduced in the House of Commons by Pierre Trudeau,[8] who famously stated that "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation".[9] In the 1995 Court of Appeal for Ontario case R. v. M. (C.), the judges ruled that the relevant section (section 159) of the Criminal Code of Canada violated section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when one or both of the partners are 16 to 18 years of age; this has not been tried in court again.
A similar decision was made by the Quebec Court of Appeal in the 1998 case R. v. Roy.
Exceptions are made between a married husband and wife, where it is legal if they are married.
we aren't talking the distant past either when we were less enlightened.
"because its illegal" wasn't sufficient then nor is it now.
Gunnair @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:49 am
You subscribe to the 'homosexuality' is a lifestyle choice?
Then your argument makes sense.
Otherwise it's nonsense.
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 14 Next